THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230133. April 3, 2017.]
ATTY. AGUSTIN B. ALO, petitioner,vs. HON. OMBUDSMAN, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS, PAUL ELMER M. CLEMENTE, MARIA CORAZON S. VERGARA-NARAJA, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER III, JANE AGUILAR, Officer-In-Charge, EIO B, and ALEJANDRO K. BAUTISTA, CENRO, DENR, Baybay City, Leyte, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 3, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230133 — ATTY. AGUSTIN B. ALO, Petitioner, v. HON. OMBUDSMAN, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS, PAUL ELMER M. CLEMENTE, MARIA CORAZON S. VERGARA-NARAJA, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER III, JANE AGUILAR, Officer-In-Charge, EIO B, and ALEJANDRO K. BAUTISTA, CENRO, DENR, Baybay City, Leyte, Respondents.
After a judicious study, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the petitioner's complaint for libel.
It is a settled rule that the courts do not interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause unless there are compelling reasons. The Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, or lack of it, is entitled to great respect absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. 1 Here, the petitioner failed to show facts that constituted the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman in issuing the assailed orders. Thus, said orders stand. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Vergara v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174567, March 12, 2009, 580 SCRA 693, 713.